NAGRAJ PUKHRAJ SHETH Vs. TAHSILDAR URAN DIST RAIGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Councillor of the Municipal Council, Urban in Raigad District elected in the general elections held on 25th April, 1985. After the general elections were held and the names of Councillors were duly notified in the Official Gazette on 27th April, 1985, respondent No. 2 the Collector of Raigad issued a notice on 3rd May, 1985 informing the Councillors that a special meeting will be held on 15th May, 1985 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Municipal Council for electing the President and for co-opting Councillors on the Council, as per the provisions of sections 51 of the Act. It is this notice issued by the Collector which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.

(2.) While admitting the writ petitions and issuing the Rule, Kotwal, J., passed the following order :---

(3.) Shri Walavalkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that the present general elections were held for reconstituting the Municipal Council which stood superseded. Therefore, the democratic process of reconstituting the Municipal Council was followed by holding general elections. According to the learned Counsel, the provisions of section 51 will have to be construed in the context of the democratic process which is the basis of reconstitution of the Municipal Council. As part of the decentralisation of power, the present legislation was enacted by the State Legislature. After the general elections were held, the elected Municipal Councillors, in the first meeting convened by the Collector, are obliged to elect their President. The President is the Head of the Municipal Council and is entitled to convene the meeting of the Council and to preside over it. Therefore, once the President of the Municipal Council is elected, nobody else has a right to preside over the meeting of the Municipal Council. Mere deletion of the words "over which the President shall preside" from sub-section (6) of section 51 cannot mean that the Collector or his nominee can preside over the meeting even after the election of the President. According to Shri Walavalkar, the said orders were wholly redundant and by merely deleting the said words, power cannot be conferred upon a foreigner to preside over a meeting of the Municipal Council after the election of the President. He also contended that the provisions of sections 51, 63 and 65, as amended, will have to be read together and construed harmoniously. So construed, it is clear that after the President of the Council is elected, he alone has a right to preside over the meeting and, therefore, the notice issued by the Collector authorising the Tahsildar, his nominee, to preside over the meeting even after the election of the President is wholly illegal.